The Year 2011: the Fiasco of the West in Afghanistan and Threat of Instability of Central Asia


Eight years of regular occupation of Afghanistan by foreign troops have not brought closer overcoming the permanent crisis, lasting many decades in this country. Notorious for “burying empires” Afghanistan successfully resists to much more powerful and developed states this time again. One can debate for a long time the reasons of the “Afghan phenomenon”, but the fact remains – the USA and NATO, as in due time the British Empire and the Soviet Union, never succeeded in reaching assigned missions in this country.

Eight years after bringing of American troops in Afghanistan the war still goes on in the country, the Taliban radical movement has not been annihilated, but even enjoys popularity with the people, terrorism is not overcome, drug trafficking prospers, and vast territories are controlled by erratic field commanders from Kabul. Afghanistan's armed forces and police are feeble; puppet power structures can do nothing without support of foreign troops. Even Washington’s attempt to organize presidential election in Afghanistan spilled over into semi-annual farce with inconsistent decisions, contradicting one another.

It is now obvious that the West is in perplexity and inclined to wonder to a lesser degree “how shall we rebuild Afghanistan?” trying to leave this unsubdued country with minimal casualties and image losses. For the time being nobody neither in the USA nor in NATO talk plain and clearly about it, but the tendency is obvious. A year of Barack Obama’s presidency showed that the present Washington administration is slow to pass from words to deeds and double the contingent of American troops in Afghanistan, which has been more than once declared in the first months of democratic government. Moreover, on the Potomac River one does not deny considerable controversies both in the Congress and in the White House concerning the USA’s further strategy in Central Asia. American press quotes from one of the anonymous administrative officers, who told that Obama is now engaged in “the strategy of withdrawal of troops” from Afghanistan.

The situation with the USA’s NATO partners is more definite – in Europe few are interested in increase in their participation in operations in Afghanistan. NATO new Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared whereupon his appointment a possibility of withdrawal of a part of the Alliance troops from a number of Afghan provinces already in 2010. In London statements about the necessity of the British contingent withdrawal from this country in 2011 are heard louder and louder. Paris, Berlin, Rome, Ottawa and The Hague continue constrainedly to maintain the Euro-Atlantic loyalty to their transatlantic ally, but at any point they can change their policy.

Suffice it to leaf through the leading American and European newspapers to make sure that the West is perplexed, it fails to understand what is going on in Afghanistan, and the purport of military contingent of many thousands stay there is even more incomprehensible for them, the contingent that could never solve its assigned missions. If the deep sense of all victims of the Western democracies countries in Iraq can be explained by the struggle for energy resources, then it is virtually impossible to “dish up” the situation in Afghanistan in this form. Arguments about the Caspian oil resources and the Turkmen gas in this context do not stand up to criticism, and will be hardly apprehended by the community. It is worth looking at the map and studying the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and around Iran to understand that no energy transport corridors are not to be expected here in the earliest possible timeframe.

It is already obvious that the period of active involvement of the West in the Afghan internecine conflict is nearly over. In years to come the Western coalition troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan. Many analysts and experts, as well as near-diplomatic circles, call even more or less specific date – the year 2011. Just this year Obama will have to present solid argumentation to the American constituency to the benefit of his second term. The war, all the more so losing one as in Afghanistan, does not add popularity to politicians. But those politicians who can wrest even the lost wars to suit themselves, simply completing them by triumphal withdrawal of troops, can well expect a promising future. Furthermore, as it was already mentioned, in the next two years mass withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan is expected, and staying too long in the region Americans risk remaining there together with Taliban. It is clear that this is fraught with a disaster for Obama at next election. And it is hard to invent another date of termination of the operation in Afghanistan better than its 10th anniversary, from the viewpoint of publicity move.

To Russia’s regret, such future development of the situation in Afghanistan is more than real, and thus, it is just Moscow on the strength of geopolitical and historic reasons that will have to pay again close attention to the Afghan problem, which after withdrawal of the Western troops from the region will not be solved by itself. Near-border Uzbekistan and Tajikistan must show still more concern by possible withdrawal of the USA and NATO troops from Afghanistan. The present leadership of these states must well remember the 1990s when hostilities on the Afghan border occurred almost every day, and the chaos from the adjoining state just was about to spread to north too. It must also remember that it was just military and diplomat efforts of the Russian Federation, true to its allied obligations under the Collective Security Treaty that had prevented the spread of the war to the whole Central Asia.

But the situation is taking a strange turn from viewpoint of reasonable policy: just these two states, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, have been recently trying to distance themselves from Russia and its initiatives in the field of security. Uzbekistan in fact froze its participation in the CSTO and many SCO projects, and its military have not taken part in joint exercises for a long time, both within the above organizations and on bilateral basis. But Tashkent has at least more or less efficient army by regional standards, which possibly will be able to repel aggression from south for a time.

Unfortunately, it cannot be said of the Tajik army. It is no secret that armed forces of Tajikistan exist in fact on paper. One should be unbiassed, at the present time the only security and sovereignty guarantor of the Republic of Tajikistan are the stationed on its territory Russian troops of the 201st military base of the Ministry of Defence of Russian Federation. And indeed apart from the defence sphere it is difficult for Tajikistan to find more reliable partner and ally in other fields of cooperation between the two states.

Nevertheless, Dushanbe more frequently declares its multivectorial foreign policy, and that it is not allowed completely depending on other state. The thesis is correct, but it seems to be based not on a sincere desire to diversify its foreign-policy and defence relationships, but on a wish, let us say unequivocally, for political blackmail of Moscow, on attempts to wring for itself still more preferences and benefits.

The USA’s advances to Tajikistan, especially active in the last two years, gave their results: in Dushanbe one felt giddy from such high attention on the part of overseas “friends”. There is no doubt that Washington needs Tajikistan, but only until the American army is in Afghanistan. After 2011 Tajikistan risks remaining face to face with a great many problems entailed by the withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of the south neighbour. And the multivectorial foreign policy will hardly save one of the poorest countries of the region that has not recovered yet from the civil war and numerous provocations at the border with Afghanistan in the 1990s, unless Russia is next to it.

It seems that it is high time for the official Dushanbe to remember the Russian proverb: “Old friends are better than new ones”.
2009-11-25 13:11
Farkhod Aliev